Spec URL: http://konradm.fedorapeople.org/fedora/SPECS/python-zope-filesystem.spec SRPM URL: http://konradm.fedorapeople.org/fedora/SRPMS/python-zope-filesystem-1-1.fc9.src.rpm Description: This package contains the base filesystem layout for all Fedora python-zope-* packages.
Note: this must be non-noarch because python_sitearch's location varies depending on the arch.
On non-lib64 platforms, I get "file listed twice" warnings, because python_sitelib is the same as python_sitearch. I think this should be something like: # For noarch packages: sitelib %{python_sitelib}/zope %if "%{python_sitearch}" != "%{python_sitelib}" # For arch-specific packages: sitearch %{python_sitearch}/zope %endif
Next up: rpmlint output: > python-zope-filesystem.i386: W: no-documentation Harmless, it's a trivial package. If you're pedantic, you can add a %doc COPYING with the GPL in it, but I guess we can do without. > python-zope-filesystem.i386: E: no-binary Harmless, see comment #1. I'll run it through my checklist next.
(rpmlint on the SRPM comes up empty, that's good.)
cp %{SOURCE0} __init__.py clobbers timestamp, should be cp -p.
Reviewing the updated specfile (same URL): MUST Items: + rpmlint output OK (see comment #3) + named and versioned according to the Package Naming Guidelines + spec file name matches base package name + Packaging Guidelines: + License ZPLv2.1 OK + No patent problems + No emulator, no firmware, no binary-only or prebuilt components + Complies with the FHS (uses proper Python directories) + proper changelog, tags, BuildRoot, Requires (none needed, python(abi) dependency autodetected), BuildRequires, Summary, Description + no non-UTF-8 characters + no relevant documentation which would need to be included + nothing to compile, so RPM_OPT_FLAGS, debuginfo, static libraries, .la files, duplicated system libraries, rpaths, _smp_mflags don't apply + debuginfo package is properly disabled (package is only arch-specific because of python_sitearch) + no configuration files, so %config guideline doesn't apply + no init scripts, so init script guideline doesn't apply + no executables, so no .desktop file present or needed + no timestamp-clobbering file commands + scriptlets are valid + not a web application, so web application guideline doesn't apply + no conflicts (assuming python-zope-interface gets changed to use this, otherwise we have a file conflict, but that's planned already) + complies with all the legal guidelines + no license which would need including as %doc + spec file written in American English + spec file is legible + no upstream to compare source against ("source" is only a trivial __init__.py file) + builds on at least one arch (F9 i386 live system) + no known non-working arches, so no ExcludeArch needed + all build dependencies listed as BuildRequires + no translations, so locale guidelines don't apply + no shared libraries, so need to call ldconfig + package not relocatable + ownership correct (owns package-specific directories, doesn't own directories owned by another package) + no duplicate files in %files + permissions set properly (defattr used correctly) + %clean section present and correct + macros used where possible + no non-code content + no large documentation files, so no -doc package needed + no %doc files, so no possible issues with %doc files required at runtime + no header files or .so symlinks which would need a -devel package + no static libraries, so no -static package needed + no .pc files, so no Requires: pkgconfig needed + no .la files + no GUI programs (in fact, no executables at all), so no .desktop file needed + buildroot is deleted at the beginning of %install + all filenames are valid UTF-8 SHOULD Items: ? maybe we want to include a copy of the ZPLv2.1? But is it worth it for this trivial package? Not a blocker in any case. + no translations for description and summary provided (no upstream) * mock build not tested * all architectures not tested, there's not much potentially arch-specific in the package anyway * no functionality test needed + scriptlets are sane + no subpackages, so "Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency." is irrelevant + no .pc files, so "placement of .pc files" is irrelevant + no file dependencies Nitpick: %if "%{python_sitearch}" != "%{python_sitelib}" could also be used in %install to avoid redundantly installing the file twice. But it doesn't really matter. APPROVED
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: python-zope-filesystem Short Description: Python-Zope Libraries Base Filesystem Owners: konradm Branches: F-10 F-9 InitialCC: felix.schwarz.eu
We can't do arbitrary email addresses in InitialCC... they will need to get a FAS account to be added there. cvs done.
Built in rawhide, closing.